Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
During the debates in the constitutional commission of 1986, Commissioner Rene Sarmiento explained the rationale of prohibiting political dynasties:
“By including this provision, we widen the opportunities of competent, young and promising poor candidates to occupy important positions in the government. While it is true we have government officials who have ascended to power despite accident of birth, they are exemptions to the general rule. The economic standing of these officials would show that they come from powerful clans with vast economic fortunes.”
Unfortunately, despite numerous attempts to introduce an anti-political dynasty law as early as the eighth Congress to effect electoral reforms and level the political landscape, Congress has failed to pass such a law. In the Seventeenth Congress, First Regular Session, three bills are worth noting: Senate Bill (SB) 1137 (Sen. Grace Poe), SB 49 (Sen. Panfilo N. Lacson Sr.) and House Bill (HB) 911 (then-Party-list Rep. Harry L. Roque Jr.), all seeking to define and prohibit the establishment of political dynasties.
In the Explanatory Note to HB 911, Roque summarizes the political/economic stronghold of political dynasties. Thus:
“Today, the Philippines is now conceivably the world capital of political dynasties. The result of 26 years of deliberate inaction by legislators is that based on the 2010 elections, today there are 178 dominant political dynasties. At the House of Representatives, 74 percent, or 170 representatives, belong to political families. In the Senate, 80 percent of the current 23 senators are members of political families. In the party-list system, 91 percent, or 52 seats, are held by millionaires and multimillionaires.
“The Philippines has 80 provinces. Of these, 94 percent, meaning 73 out of 80, have political dynasties. In every province, there are at least two political families.
“Political dynasties who have ruled for more than 30 years include six families. Political dynasties who have ruled for more than 20 years include at least 61 families. On the other hand, political dynasties who have ruled 12 to 18 years include 53 political families.
“Political dynasty is anathema in a democracy, because in one geographical area, one family controls power, corruption, the military, the police and illegal activities, such as illegal gambling, drug smuggling, gun smuggling and smuggling of various other objects banned by law. In this manner, political dynasties have become invulnerable and constitute an open defiance of our Constitution, thus blatantly undermining the rule of law.
“Political dynasties are both results and manifestations of our failure to reform the electoral system, inability to create a sizable educated middle class, and the continuing success of the politics of personality. Political dynasties are also problematic for our democracy because they effectively disqualify otherwise highly qualified prospective public officers, create more opportunities for corruption and generate cynicism about public service.”
To fight the evil brought about by the nondemocratization of power, the absence of checks-and-balances and the consolidation and concentration of political and economic power, Poe in SB 1137 lays down prohibition against those belonging to the same family from holding elective positons with overlapping “jurisdictions” or constituencies, as follows:
a) A relative intending to replace to succeed an incumbent;
b) If the incumbent is an elective barangay official, the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity are prohibited to run simultaneously for any position in the same barangay, as well as in all the barangays in municipalities/cities within the same legislative district;
c) If the incumbent is an elective official of the municipality/city, legislative district and/or province, the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity are prohibited to run for or hold any elective local office simultaneously within the incumbent within the same municipality/city, legislative district and/or province.
d) If the incumbent is a national elective official, the spouse and relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity are, likewise, prohibited to run simultaneously for any position in the national level or in the local level as mayor, governor or district representative in any part of the country. However, the spouse and said relatives may run for vice governor, vice mayor or any legislative councils at the provincial, city or municipality level.
e) If the incumbent is a governor or district representative, the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity are also prohibited to run simultaneously for any position in the national level; or
f) Persons who are not holding any public office shall, likewise, be prohibited from running in the same election if their election will result in a political dynasty relationship.”
Similarly, SB 49 of Lacson seeks to prohibit the spouse or person related within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity whether legitimate or illegitimate, full or half blood, to an incumbent elective official seeking reelection, to hold or run for any elective office in the same city and/or province in the same election.
At Sen. Francis N. Pangilinan’s Senate Committee Hearing on the proposed anti-dynasty law, Dean Ronald Mendoza of the Ateneo School of Government distinguished between “fat” political dynasties, which should be banned, and “thin” political clans, which “are not related to most destructive patterns of bad governance. Fat political dynasties are so powerful that they can occupy up to more than 20 political positions in their provinces, all at the same time. Dean Mendoza cited provinces like Ilocos Sur, Bulacan, Batangas, Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte and Maguindanao. On the other hand, thin political dynasties are content with having members succeed each other in office (Inquirer.Net, posted by Philip C. Tubeza).
Opponents of a Federal form of government are of the view that Federalism is a step toward institutionalizing dynasties instead of banning them. My view is that a public office is a public trust. It is not private property that can be bought, sold, bartered or inherited by succession, regardless of the form of government some may want to put in place. It is a service not a business that is concentrated in the hands of a few families.
If change is really here, let us not only trim the fat, but truly abolish the pork and ban from public office the fat dynasties that survive and thrive on it.